Sure. You have to solve it from inside out:

• not()…See comment below for this one, I was tricked is a base function that negates what’s inside (turning True to False and vice versa) giving it no parameter returns “True” (because no parameter counts as False)
• str(x) turns x into a string, in this case it turns the boolean True into the text string ‘True’
• min(x) returns the minimal element of an iterable. In this case the character ‘T’ because capital letters come before non-capital letters, otherwise it would return ‘e’ (I’m not entirely sure if it uses unicode, ascii or something else to compare characters, but usually capitals have a lower value than non-capitals and otherwise in alphabetical order ascending)
• ord(x) returns the unicode number of x, in this case turning ‘T’ into the integer 84
• range(x) creates an iterable from 0 to x (non-inclusive), in this case you can think of it as the list [0, 1, 2, …82, 83] (it’s technically an object of type range but details…)
• sum(x) sums up all elements of a list, summing all numbers between 0 and 84 (non-inclusive) is 3486
• chr(x) is the inverse of ord(x) and returns the character at position x, which, you guessed it, is ‘ඞ’ at position 3486.

The huge coincidental part is that ඞ lies at a position that can be reached by a cumulative sum of integers between 0 and a given integer. From there on it’s only a question of finding a way to feed that integer into chr(sum(range(x)))

I trained the generative models all from scratch. Pretrained models are not that helpful when it’s important to accurately capture very domain specific features.

One of the classifiers I tried was based on zoobot with a custom head. Assuming the publications around zoobot are truthful, it was trained exclusively on similar data from a multitude of different sky surveys.

Does it? I worked on training a classifier and a generative model on freely available galaxy images taken by Hubble and labelled in a citizen science approach. Where’s the theft?

Reading this comment gave me the idea to get Gemini’s “opinion”. Ironically, it turns out Google might’ve actually done better if they did that.

5.5 years? No way they’ll shut down this quickly. The next Elder Scrolls alone will carry them into 2030. (As much as I would enjoy you being right though…)

Have you tried reading it? It’s written so poorly that I really hope no human was involved in this and it’s just AI generated garbage.

Source

I find it wild that, to this day, Windows defaults to opening them in a browser. Windows has an image viewer right there.

Can that image viewer extract text so that a user could easily copy/paste it? I think if whatever pdf I was opening didn’t allow me to do that I would be really frustrated.

Remember the people who created malicious libraries that ChatGPT made up and suggested, in the hopes someone would blindly install them? You can do this a lot easier here. Check what websites this tends to hallucinate when typing “google” “youtube” “facebook” etc. and if any of them don’t exist yet, register that address and host a phishing version of the corresponding site there.

I think the humor is meant to be in the juxtaposition between “reference” in media contexts (e.g. “I am your father”) and “reference” in programming contexts and applying the latter context to the former one.

What does “I’m your father” mean if the movie is jaws?

I think the absurdity of that question is part of said humor. That being said, I didn’t find it funny either.

That was a response I got from ChatGPT with the following prompt:

Please write a one sentence answer someone would write on a forum in a response to the following two posts:
post 1: “You sure? If it’s another bot at the other end, yeah, but a real person, you recognize ChatGPT in 2 sentences.”
post 2: “I was going to disagree with you by using AI to generate my response, but the generated response was easily recognizable as non-human. You may be onto something lol”

It’s does indeed have an AI vibe, but I’ve seen scammers fall for more obvious pranks than this one, so I think it’d be good enough. I hope it fooled at least a minority of people for a second or made them do a double take.

Yeah, I’ve noticed that too—there’s a distinct ‘AI vibe’ that comes through in the generated responses, even if it’s subtle.

I’m not really sure how to describe it other than when I read a function to determine what it does then go to the next part of the code I’ve already forgotten how the function transforms the data

This sounds to me like you could benefit from mentally using the information hiding principle for your functions. In other words: Outside of the function, the only thing that matters is “what goes in?” and “what comes out?”. The implementation details should not be important once you’re working on code outside of that function.

To achieve this, maybe you could write a short comment right at the start of every function. One to two sentences detailing only the inputs/output of that function. e.g. “Accepts an image and a color and returns a mask that shows where that color is present.” if you later forget what the function does, all you need to do is read that one sentence to remember. If it’s too convoluted to write in one or two sentences, your function is likely trying to achieve too much at once and could (arguably “should”) be split up.

Also on a different note: Don’t sell your ability to “cludge something together” short. If you ever plan to do this professionally or educationally, you will sadly inevitably run into situations where you have no choice but to deliver a quick and dirty solution over a clean and well thought out one.

Edit: typos